Could one person sit on both Barnwell County’s hospital board and transportation committee?

Plain-English summary

In a 1997 letter, an assistant attorney general concluded that a person serving at the same time on Barnwell County's Hospital and Nursing Home Board and its Transportation Committee would most probably violate South Carolina's constitutional ban on holding two public offices. The conclusion was qualified: the author called hospital board members “most probably” officers and cited an earlier AG opinion saying transportation committee status was “not entirely free from doubt.”

The hospital board's powers included acquiring land, constructing facilities, adopting rules, managing personnel, borrowing, and serving county residents. The author treated those as exercises of state sovereign power. He applied the dual-office test to both positions rather than assuming that any two county appointments were prohibited.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the letter say membership on the Barnwell hospital board was a public office?
A: It said most probably yes, citing the board's legally assigned powers over facilities, property, personnel, and borrowing.

Q: Was transportation committee membership clearly an office?
A: The letter relied on earlier AG analysis that it appeared to be an office, while expressly acknowledging doubt on that classification.

Q: Did the AG say the two positions could be held together?
A: No. Combining the two classifications, the author concluded simultaneous service would most probably violate the constitutional restriction.

Q: Did the opinion establish that every county board member held an office?
A: No. It described a test involving sovereign powers and statutory features of each position and applied it to the two Barnwell bodies.

Background and legal framework

An attorney asked about overlapping service on the two county bodies. The opinion quoted Article XVII, Section IA's ban on holding two offices of honor or profit at once. It reviewed the acts establishing and merging Barnwell's hospital and nursing home boards and drew on prior AG opinions concerning transportation committees. The conclusion was a probable application of the constitutional test, not a reported court holding about these seats.

Citations and references

• Constitution: Article XVII, Section IA (dual-office restriction).

Official title

Concerning whether a dual office holding situation exists if a member of the Barnwell County Hospital Board simultaneously serves on the Barnwell County Transportation Committee.

Requester

Daniel W. Williams, Esquire

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-7-1997/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/97jan7williams.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
f

l
I
I

CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 7, 1997

Daniel W. Williams, Esquire
Post Office Box 616
Barnwell, South Carolina 29812
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Williams:
By you recent letter, you have asked the opinion of this Office on whether it would contravene the dual office holding provisions of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina for an individual to simultaneously serve on the Barnwell County Hospital Board and the Barnwell County Transportation Committee. Article XVII, Section IA of the South Carolina Constitution provides that "[n]o person may hold two offices of honor or profit at the same time ... ," with exceptions specified for officers in the militia, members of a lawfully and regularly organized fire department, constables, or a notary public. For this provision to be contravened, a person concurrently must hold two public offices which have duties involving the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of the State. Sanders v. Belue, 78 S.C. 171, 58 S.E. 762 (1907). Other relevant considerations are whether statutes, or other such authority, establish the position, prescribe its tenure, duties or salary, or require qualifications or an oath for the position. State v. Crenshaw, 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E.2d 61 (1980). The first position to be considered is that of a member of the Barnwell County Hospital and Nursing Home Board. The Hospital Board was initially established by Act No. 298, 1953 Acts and Joint Resolutions, and the Nursing Home Board by Act No. 1155, 1964 Acts and Joint Resolutions. The two boards and their respective functions were consolidated as the Barnwell County Hospital and Nursing Home Board by Act No. 1455, 1968 Acts and Joint Resolutions. Board members have a tenure of four years. Section

Mr. Williams
Page 2
January 7, 1997

t
I

1, Act No. 1455. There are no provisions for an oath of office, salary or qualifications.' The duties do appear to be an exercise of a portion of the sovereign power of the State. Section 1 of Act No. 298 establishes the Hospital Board "to provide hospital facilities for inhabitants of the county." By Act No. 298, duties of the board include the acquisition of real estate; accepting grant-in-aids, donations, and so forth; construction of the hospital; adoption of rules and regulations; personnel matters; and others. By Act No. 1155, board members are empowered to construct and equip a nursing home; employ personnel; accept gifts and grants; borrow money; and others. By Act No. 1455, powers and duties were to continue from the previous acts. It would appear that the Barnwell County Hospital and Nursing Home Board is acting for the inhabitants of the county. All factors considered, the members of the Board are most probably officers for dual office holding purpose. Op.Atty.Gen. dated September 6, 1984. The other position to be considered is that of Barnwell County Transportation Committee member. This Office has opined on several occasions concerning members of county transportation committees in the context of dual office holding. In an opinion dated May 16, 1995, it was concluded that "while it is not entirely free from doubt, it appears that one who would serve on a County Transportation Committee would hold an office for dual office holding purposes."

b
I
F"

!

In conclusion, based on the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Office that one who would serve simultaneously on the Barnwell County Hospital and Nursing Home Board and the Barnwell County Transportation Committee would most probably violate the dual office holding provisions of the State Constitution. With kindest regards, I remain

~)i7rs,
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General

In your opinion request, you have informed this Office that members of the Hospital Board receive six hundred dollars ($600.00) in pay.